LAWS(KERCDRC)-2011-8-78

MARUTHI UDYOG LTD. Vs. E.A. PRIYA

Decided On August 30, 2011
Maruthi Udyog Ltd. Appellant
V/S
E.A. Priya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 551/2002 dated 25.8.2003. The appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3 and respondents are the complainant and first and 4th opposite parties respectively. This appeal prefers from the direction of the Forum below that to replace the defective vehicle by the opposite .parties with a new one of the desired colour, to refund Rs.18,800 towards one time road tax remitted and Rs.7,785 paid towards insurance premium. If this is not practical and this distance of time, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.3;58,617 as stated with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29.4.2002 till realization to Rs.4.000 as compensation and Rs.700 as costs.

(2.) IN brief, this is a dispute arised between the complainant and the opposite parties in connection with the purchase of a Maruti Zen Car on 29.4.2002. The colour of the car is œrevera red . Immediately on purchase, the complainant remitted Rs.18,800 towards life time tax and Rs 7,785 towards insurance premium for the vehicle. Next day of the purchase of the car the .complainant noticed that the colour of the paint of the dicky was different from the rest of the body of the vehicle. It seems to have been repainted. Immediately the petitioner approached the first opposite party with a request to replace the vehicle. Then he was told that the Manager was not in the station and then he again approached and then the first opposite party told him that they would have to inform the matter to the Maruthi Udyog before doing anything. Nothing happened even thereafter. Meanwhile the first service of the vehicle which was due at 1,000 km was done by Akkara Car Company, Thrissur another authorized dealer of the Maruthi Udyog. Subsequently on 6.6.2002 the complainant made a final request to the first opposite party. This occasion the first opposite party retain the car with them and gave a receipt with the remarks œDicky Defective (re -painted) as per customer observation.  The first opposite party is also suggested to repaint the dicky door. But there is no positive attitude from the part of the opposite parties to replace the vehicle even the complainant approached them on several occasions. As a last, resort the complainant filed the complaint to redress his grievances and subsequent reliefs as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act

(3.) THE concerned opposite parties appeared and filed their versions respectively. They contended that so many defenses just like it is the duty of the complainant to check the vehicle at the time of taking delivery. Another contention is that it is not a manufacturing defect. It is a colour change on the dickey door alone. It is a very minor mistake. The complainant have no difficulty to use the vehicle with this defect The colour change is only on the inside of the dickey. It cannot be taken as a defect and as well as a deficiency in service. They are not liable for any compensation. They totally denied all the averments in the petition.